Salient » Finn Hollandhttp://salient.org.nz
Tue, 28 Nov 2017 21:43:59 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.18A Few of the Best Films of 2017http://salient.org.nz/2017/10/a-few-of-the-best-films-of-2017/
http://salient.org.nz/2017/10/a-few-of-the-best-films-of-2017/#commentsFri, 13 Oct 2017 20:00:55 +0000http://salient.org.nz/?p=48979There were too many good films this year to write a concise list, but it certainly helps that I’ve already written GLOWING reviews for mother!, My Life As A Courgette and IT. The list below is not exhaustive. Further recommendations are Raw and Get Out for some alternative horror fun; Logan and Split for violent thrills; Things To Come and The Passion of Augustine for international tales; and Una, The Killing of a Sacred Deer and The Beguiled for some truly unconventional (and at times disturbing) stories.

I list the following in alphabetical order.

*

A Ghost Story — David Lowery

Quietly yet overwhelmingly philosophical, this film combines the sweetest, smallest moments of indie drama with the universal scale of Terrence Malick’s later films. Set in one house across multiple decades, we follow C’s ghost (Casey Affleck) as M (Rooney Mara) copes with his passing. At its largest the film ponders the weight of eternity and insignificance, but at its smallest it rests on the pop song that M listens to, trying to remember C.

It’s beautiful to watch a film dedicate a lot of time to the tiny moments that other films would otherwise glaze over, or cut. The film addresses its audience saying “this couple lying in bed, this is the most important part of life. This cake that M eats, this is the most important part of life.” The point the film presents is that life and time are immeasurable, and in the wake of that, you have two choices. The first is to let life pass by, something C does both in life and as a ghost, and the second is treat everything as significant and keep moving forward, as M does, and as the film wants you to do. If you want something purely cinematic, but straight from the heart, look no further.

Blade Runner 2049 — Denis Villeneuve

This will go down in cinema history as one of the biggest pop culture bulls-eyes a filmmaker has ever achieved. First of all there’s the rebooting of an ’80s cult hit, most of which are sketchy at best, and then there’s the monumental themes from the original that this film managed to build on so elegantly and emotionally. I mean for God’s sake, Sony gave an art-house director $150 million with no creative pressure and said “go for your life, go follow up Blade Runner” — and it actually paid off.

The film far bolder than a blockbuster would ever have been able to be be under any other director. Denis Villeneuve has gone from being one of my favourite filmmakers to be my favourite. He dabbles in genres (sci-fi for Arrival and Blade Runner; thriller for Prisoners and Sicario) but he is always laser focused on the human dilemma at the heart of each story, and each film finds catharsis against its respective challenges in ways that are unconventional and beautiful.

In Blade Runner 2049 the “respective challenges” are not just physical baddies to punch through, they are the oppressive landscapes that are even less bright and appealing than Ridley Scott’s 1982 vision. Everything in this world falls under scrutiny from drone warfare, to sex, to relationships with media, to creation. And let’s not forget the themes that weigh heavily on both the story and Ryan Gosling’s character — the themes of purpose, and of personhood. It’s dire and bleak, but also enthralling. Please go see it, preferably at the Embassy where Roger Deakin’s cinematography will looks its best, and the score by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch will resonate to its utmost.

Dunkirk — Christopher Nolan

The film has already been awash with critical and financial success, and it still baffles me how successful it is. You could go as far as to call the film minimalist, with the small amount of dialogue, characters who (realistically) never meet, and a story which never shows England or the Germans. But I hardly think Nolan set out to make a minimalist film, and neither will anyone who has seen it. Nolan and his cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema told such an emotional story with their images, all which come together with barely a hint of CGI. There really is no substitute for reality as they used real Spitfires and also had (apparently) the biggest naval unit ever for a film. What they also managed to do was tell a very different kind of war story, with the clever interweaving between its three narratives, plus the knife edge editing throughout made for an uninterrupted thrill. Nolan may have have his fan boys, but this time round he deserved it. Go see it with the best screen and sound system you can find.

Good Time — Ben Safdie and Josh Safdie

This film is pure punk — not just in aesthetic, but in sheer will. Shot on film, handheld, close, and in impossibly low light levels, the film has an unforgiving pace and is a career high. Everything feels real and gritty, as two brothers (Robert Pattinson and Ben Safdie) try and evade capture after robbing a bank, descending into a rabbit hole of crime and depravity. The film goes places you don’t want it to go, and offers very little in the way of resolution, but its raw emotion comes from the intense brotherly love that underpins every desperate action. Hats off to Ben who directed the film along with his brother Josh, while also starring alongside Patterson and allegedly operated boom for the scenes he wasn’t in. Everything feels suitably tenacious, and it feels like a mash up of Catch Me If You Can and Nicolas Winding Refn’s first Pusher film, in that no matter the reprehensibility of the protagonists, you follow them everywhere, and in a weird way start to hope for their salvation.

War For the Planet of the Apes — Matt Reeves

A handful of films took me to an emotional place this year, but this series finale brought me to tears. Truly one of the best final chapters in one of the best trilogies that has ever been made, Matt Reeve’s directorial effort reminded me how a film with a blockbuster budget can be beautifully told and provide cutting allegory on the nature of war and humanity. Every turn of this film challenges its characters, and for a third chapter that is exactly what needs to happen. Andy Serkis’ Caesar is put through the philosophical and physical wringer on multiple occasions, and his malicious human adversary The Colonel (Woody Harrelson) is also given a thorough treatment and complex characterisation. In the characters are outstanding, all the images are beautiful, the story takes more than its share of risks (all of which pay off), and Serkis has reached a peak for both his acting and motion capture technology. Between him and director/writer Reeves, they’ve succeeded in turning Caesar into a lasting, rich character whose story it has been a privilege to follow through the Apes franchise revitalisation.

Wind River — Taylor Sheridan

It was so satisfying to see Taylor Sheridan’s unofficial trilogy dubbed the “The Frontiers of America” (or as I call it, the “America is Fucked” trilogy) rounded out with a directorial turn for the writer, whose previous two entries (Sicario and Hell Or High Water) were so unflinching and politically biting. All in all, the three films now represent a crucial chapter in neo-noirs and politically focused thrillers. Sicario focused on the lawless and immoral nature of border conflict between America and Mexico; Hell Or High Water highlighted the economic depravity that leads to crime; Wind River finds its focus in the violence committed as a result of prejudice, between people who live next door to each other.

Set on a Native American reservation and frozen Wyoming a handful of law enforcement come together to solve the brutal death of a young Native American woman. What is unearthed is heartbreaking, and Sheridan follows the events in a documentary-like manner, with handheld cameras and glimpses at a culture which has been driven out of the people by repression, trauma, and the unforgiving elements of the land. The cast are all round incredible, as is the writing, and I’m excited to see what Sheridan does next.

]]>http://salient.org.nz/2017/10/a-few-of-the-best-films-of-2017/feed/0Best Docos of the Yearhttp://salient.org.nz/2017/10/best-docos-of-the-year/
http://salient.org.nz/2017/10/best-docos-of-the-year/#commentsSun, 08 Oct 2017 20:00:49 +0000http://salient.org.nz/?p=48703The other day I started sketching out a “Best Films of the Year” list. This was as much a precautionary measure for an upcoming Salient issue as a tactical device to dispatch questions along the lines of “what should I watch?” with ease. As it turned out, half of the list were documentaries. This year, at the New Zealand International Film Festival, Doc Edge, and in general, I sought out as many documentaries as I could. In previous years I’ve been able to entertain myself exclusively with dramas, indie films, and blockbusters, but those days are more or less over.

What I can rely on now is people’s need to capture the world and their subjects, and express their ideas. To get an idea, the films here deal with race “then and now,” LGBTQ+ history, meat consumption, documentary ethics, global warming, and magic. Here are are my top seven, listed in alphabetical order:

100 Men — Paul Oremland (NZ)

Paul Oremland set out to capture and present 40 years of gay civil rights, subculture, and history in this highly ambitious, heartwarming, heartbreaking, hilarious film, which has the best premise for a documentary I’ve ever encountered. To structure his film he contacted 100 men, but more specifically his 100 most memorable shags. The film seamlessly shifts between a reflection on Paul’s own life, a speculation on how far gay civil rights have come, and dozens of anecdotes from his subjects.

What this new film from Al Gore and his initial release in 2007 both have in common is a wonderful sense of optimism, even in the face of enormous odds. However, after watching the two back to back, it is evident that the world has become a far crazier place. Traversing the globe and informing others as to the effects of global warming has been Gore’s mission for years, and the film pauses to consider how far we’ve come, but also how exhaustingly far we have to go, made all the more challenging by recent developments of more political hurdles.

I Am Not Your Negro — Raoul Peck (USA)

James Baldwin once started a book, documenting the civil rights movement through his experiences with Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King Jr. He did not get very far before all three were murdered, but the 30 or so pages of notes, narrated by Samuel L. Jackson, help form this heartstopping and harshly observant film, directed by Raoul Peck. The research component of the film is immense, with almost the entire runtime coming from historical footage, but the film occasionally places observations Baldwin made about 1950s America over clips from the present day, to haunting effect. He effectively asks white America: what insecurities do you have that led (and still lead) you to create the concept of the “negro”?

Meat — David White (NZ)

I published a review of this many months ago, so I won’t say much more about this film other than it’s an impressive production, right from the philosophy down to its aesthetic. Its four subjects discuss meat consumption from various angles, and throughout the film there is never a moment where it becomes too preachy, one way or the other.

What Lies That Way— Paul Wolffram (NZ)

Ethnographic filmmaker Paul Wolffram returns to the rainforests of Southern New Ireland, Papua New Guinea, where he has grown a relationship with the local Lak people over the past 15 years. This time Paul has come with the goal of completing Buai, the initiation into the shaman cult within Lak culture, and a process which blends sorcery, belief, and endurance. Both the people and the process are shot naturally and candidly, the result of incredible trust, and the result is as pure as a documentary can be. The actual period of time in which initiation takes place — four days of fasting — is barely stylistically embellished, leaving speculation open as to what exactly Paul is experiencing, both mentally and spiritually. (available On Demand)

Wilbur: King in the Ring — J. Ollie Lucks and Julia Parnell (NZ)

J. Ollie Lucks set out to make a quirky wrestling biopic about his Dunedin-based university friend Wilbur McDougall, but this quickly evolves into a weight loss journey, which then becomes a dramatic feud between friends. The ethics may be questionable, but overall the film is thoroughly enjoyable as Wilbur becomes increasingly scrutinising of Lucks’ methods with typical New Zealand dry humour. Lucks’ exploitation of Wilbur’s weight problem becomes obvious, which of course becomes problematic. Regardless, the film is fun, and never claims to be accurate, unedited, verité, or anything except a suitably over-the-top portrait of an over-the-top individual.

Quest — Jonathan Olshefski (USA)

This was one of the last films I saw at the NZIFF, when I didn’t think I could be any more emotionally engaged or overwhelmed. Little did I know that I was about to witness a small wonder of a film, which follows a working class African American family in Philadelphia through the Obama years. Intimate and evocative, the filmmakers grant access to the family, and the working class community around them, through all the highs and lows. In the downstairs of the family’s house we see the recording studio where young men are given a sanctuary from their lives, while out on the streets we see the senseless violence that sends shock waves through the communities. It’s raw and powerful, and a fantastic journey of a film.

]]>http://salient.org.nz/2017/10/best-docos-of-the-year/feed/0IT — Andy Muschiettihttp://salient.org.nz/2017/09/it-andy-muschietti/
http://salient.org.nz/2017/09/it-andy-muschietti/#commentsSun, 24 Sep 2017 20:00:08 +0000http://salient.org.nz/?p=48507This year has been somewhat drier for horror films, with my last genuine thrill coming back in May with Get Out. Thankfully, IT scratched the itch. An adaption of Stephen King’s famous novel, all most people will want to hear is that IT lives up to every expectation. If you’ve seen the trailer you’ll know what the opening scene is, but seeing it in its entirety in the theatre is an unforgettable experience that sets the precedent for what follows. You’ll know what I’m talking about, trust me.

I was caught off guard (probably because I’m used to sub-par horror movies) by how much of a character driven film it is, with each and every one of the Losers’ Club given fair amounts of screen time both individually, and as a collective. The chemistry between the young characters, which is thankfully very R-rated, is suitably realistic. While their comradery is a force to be reckoned with, there is a force that seeks to divide them, and then sequentially devour them. I refer of course to Bill Skarsgård’s Pennywise the Dancing Clown. Now, I am not afraid of clowns, but I am afraid of this clown. He drools, his eyes misalign, and every practical and digital effect merges seamlessly with Skarsgård’s unhinged performance. What’s funny about the performance is that he is actually playing a clown to the literal point of being funny. He’s basically entertaining himself, and what’s entertaining for Pennywise is certifiably terrifying for the audience. With his character, and basically every element in the rest of the film, the filmmakers don’t hold back, and create some truly demented and jaw-dropping sequences, while working constantly with the beautiful traditions of horror.

It’s almost sad that this film is R16 (though I fully endorse its content) because this is a coming of age story that a younger version of me would have taken real joy from. The film treats its audience respectfully, and the kids act like you’d expect them to. Members of the Losers’ Club repeatedly whine that it’s summer, and that they’ve got better and safer things to do than hunt a murderous clown, but on they go on with comradery, curiosity, and even duty. It may not be The Shining or Stand By Me, but I’m very glad to add IT to the category of King’s adaptations* that live up to the source material’s legacy.

* There have been 65 films based on his written works, of which I can recommend seven: Carrie (1976), The Shining (1980), Stand By Me (1986), Misery (1990), The Shawshank Redemption (1994), The Green Mile (1999), and 1408 (2007).

Aronofsky’s new film mother!is the most boundary pushing, experimental, intense film I’ve seen all year. It’s also the only film I’ve been to in a very, very long time where people walked out. As an allegory it is uncompromising, as a drama it is riveting, and it’s wonderful to see a director who is so in command of film language that they can bend the rules and play well beyond the bounds that most mainstream audiences would expect.

Jennifer Lawrence plays mother (lowercase, critically) and Javier Bardem plays Him (uppercase, critically). They live a quiet life in a beautiful house that mother has been restoring to create the perfect environment for Him to write and get over his creative block, and things are peaceful. Until, of course, Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer arrive as a husband and wife who overstay their welcome. Then their children arrive, and then their extended family. The two plots at play at the film’s core are a home invasion thriller and a psychological drama focused on Him and mother’s relationship.

I don’t want to spoil anything, and I won’t even delve into the multitude of ways to interpret the film, but I will say that its breadth and depth of content make it enigmatic and irresistible. We live in a complex world with a severe weight upon our culture and history, and as such, a film that tackles existence and creation head on is a wonderful thrill. As David Lynch says: life is confusing, so films should reflect this.

Although my response to the film was ecstatic, I won’t pretend the actual experience was entirely joyous. The film is intense, and at times disturbing. The vast majority of the shots centre on Lawrence, with the camera work tightening and tightening and getting shakier and shakier, Aronofsky twisting the claustrophobia knob ’til it breaks. The sound design is also magnificent, with sound and image misaligning in moments of hallucination — emptiness somehow being amplified uncomfortably. While mother and Him are alone in the house, every acoustic footfall reverberates, making the otherwise idyllic uneasy and empty.

I was thinking recently about the underperformance and underappreciation of complex and challenging films in recent years, and I honestly think it echoes the political landscape, but this film is worth your time and money even if it disturbs and confuses you. The ideas and the presentation of them are timely and exceptional, Lawrence and Bardem are constantly fantastic, and the film’s uniqueness is something to be celebrated.

]]>http://salient.org.nz/2017/09/mother-darren-aronofsky/feed/0Wanted: Star Wars Film Director (Fixed Term, 3–6 Months at the Most)http://salient.org.nz/2017/09/wanted-star-wars-film-director-fixed-term-3-6-months-at-the-most/
http://salient.org.nz/2017/09/wanted-star-wars-film-director-fixed-term-3-6-months-at-the-most/#commentsSun, 17 Sep 2017 21:00:25 +0000http://salient.org.nz/?p=48382Salient touches on some pretty hot topics politically, socially, and culturally, so I thought I’d add to the mix by discussing the absolute shit-storm that has been going on behind closed doors at Lucasfilm, the production company in charge of Star Wars films, over the past few years. The franchise has had four directors quit or be fired in two years. What this means is that in the bland, homogenised wasteland that has become blockbuster season, one of the most reliable and original series on the planet is in serious jeopardy in terms of its risk taking and creativity. But first, let’s flash back to 2015 when The Force Awakens was nearly upon us, and a slate of films with attached directors were equally imminent.

Part of this slate was a Boba Fett stand-alone film, and Josh Trank, director of the excellent Chronicle, was attached to direct. Admittedly, he also directed that year’s Fantastic Four, which was a flaming trash fire of cinema. There are reports that he repeatedly turned up drunk on set for the latter, resulting in him being swiftly kicked off the Boba Fett project. At the time it also seemed like no big deal, given that the movie had not even entered pre-production. What started to raise alarm bells was the news of the extensive reshoots conducted in mid-2016 for the Gareth Edwards-directed Rogue One, the first stand-alone Star Wars film.

Rogue Oneis an enjoyable film, but it’s nowhere near the “Saving Private Ryan of Star Wars” it was anticipated to be. To me, it’s not even a very emotionally engaging movie. Part of this is due to the fact that Lucasfilm, headed by Kathleen Kennedy, was displeased with Edwards’ cut of the film, and a major reshoot and re-edit was carried out without the director. The third act was changed the most, with a reportedly gritty beach battle being replaced with a convoluted plot in which characters die strangely separate from each other. The final act had virtually no emotional weight or satisfaction, largely because the character arcs that were begun earlier in the film went nowhere by the end of it. However, the film was plentyStar Wars-esque, and was a financial success, so all remained well.

Then around two months ago came the news that Christopher Miller and Phil Lord had been fired from the production of the untitled Han Solo film, the difference this time being they had five weeks shooting still to go. Directors leaving in pre-production and post-production is one thing, but I’ve trawled the internet for cases of directors being fired during production, and there are scarcely any, let alone on a project as large scale as a Star Wars film. Reportedly, Kathleen Kennedy and co. were displeased with the assembly cut coming together under the pair, and their visions did not align. My question therefore is this: if Lucasfilm were not on board with Lord and Miller’s vision prior to the start of filming, why did they hire them in the first place? On the one hand, it’s curious that that the directors of 21 and 22 Jump Street were given a Star Wars project at all, and when reports came that they were disregarding the script in favour of improvising with the actors, surely Lucasfilm had no right to be surprised? But then, allegedly the cast and crew broke into applause when news broke that the directors had been fired, so how much fun could they really have been having?

Anyway, without losing any breath whatsoever, Ron Howard was hired to finish those five weeks, as well as another five weeks of reshoots and the post-production. He’s a good director, but undoubtedly a very, very safe choice as well. I (unjustifiably) loath the Tom Hanks Da Vinci Code movies, but he directed A Beautiful Mind and I personally love Rush from 2013, so I’ll hold out and wait to see what the project yields.

Finally, it was recently announced that Colin Trevorrow was “mutually” parting ways with Lucasfilm, stepping down from directing Episode IX. This is the most mixed bag in terms of news, but I think it’s the last nail in the coffin for the collaboration and artistic vision on these films. Trank was fired because he was deemed risky, Edwards was fired because the product he turned out did not please the higher ups, and Lord and Miller were fired in mid-creation of a product the higher ups were displeased with. Now Trevorrow has left the project prior to pre-production, with the rumours suggesting that Lucasfilm lost faith in the director. This theory has potential; his last two films, Jurassic World and The Book of Henry, are not exactly the kind of films that scream “Star Wars” or even “semi-artistic vision”. LucasFilm may have seen dollar signs with Trevorrow’s Jurassic World, but it seems they’ve just realised that he doesn’t have the artistic capabilities to bring in both the box office as well as the critical reviews. But for God’s sake, surely when you’re screening a director for a project you take all these into account? You find out their vision? Or you find out if they have a vision at all?

What all of these cases mean overall is that Star Wars, and the producers and executives that manage the films’ production, are hiring and firing directors at will, with little to no regard for the individual’s vision. I’m not even the biggest Star Wars fan, but I know that the franchise began from unruly and unorthodox thinking. In fact A New Hope and Jaws, made one year apart, were essentially made on the basis of turning up in the morning, assessing which props and effects were actually working, and going from there. Now the studio won’t even let the directors come up with their own ideas, let alone realise them. Blockbusters are becoming increasingly homogenous, trying to appeal to as many people as possible, and it would be truly heartbreaking to see Star Wars go the same way. If they keep following the route they are now, all that can happen is that Star Wars will become diluted, aimless, and an exercise in production design with no underlying meaning or characters. It’d be a sad day when that happens, but I will be happily disproven by any and all of the projects I have pre-emptively judged.

]]>http://salient.org.nz/2017/09/wanted-star-wars-film-director-fixed-term-3-6-months-at-the-most/feed/0My Life As A Courgette — Claude Barrashttp://salient.org.nz/2017/07/my-life-as-a-courgette-claude-barras/
http://salient.org.nz/2017/07/my-life-as-a-courgette-claude-barras/#commentsSun, 16 Jul 2017 21:00:26 +0000http://salient.org.nz/?p=47396All I have to say about the film tonight is that I’ll be astounded if you don’t all love it.

When I got an email from the New Zealand International Film Festival organisers, I was saddened that the first sentence of their message did not contain the words “free tickets.” My spirits were however lifted almost immediately as the next sentence contained the very similar phrases “free food and drink, and a free screening.” I turned up to the official programme release, and happily indulged in a French animation (with an American overdub) entitled My Life As A Courgette (or Zucchini,for American audiences). Animated films are often wonders to behold, both mainstream and experimental, and this film is no exception. Set in a bleak world from a nine-year old’s perspective, there is a narrative that is short, sweet, and offers a remarkable thesis on life and love through the dialogue and antics of a handful of orphans and strays.

Evidently the world is a dark, unloving, adult place to these children, and they know they certainly won’t find a place within it easily. What they can do, however, is to learn to love themselves and each other. In typical French fashion, the satisfaction here comes from the contrast of joy and sadness. Every scene has shadows pooled in the corner, and the comedy is blissfully naive as often as it is sullenly dark. The characters themselves are also far more disturbed than any of their Disney contemporaries, so any catharsis or emotional gratification comes as a sharp relief and brings the film to a perfect balance. It is refreshing to find a film for young ages that is not afraid to admit that life is dark, unfair, and sad, but encourages us to make the best of it and keep moving forward. Christ, dozens of films for adults can’t even admit that. The most that characters in rom-com dramas often have to deal with is “why won’t they love me back!?” and “why is life so hard!?” These characters are seldom deserving of the sympathy that I gave so willingly to this particular band of animated French miscreants.

There’s not much to say plot-wise — I called the film short and sweet; it is literally an hour long — but every little moment and sequence builds the characters and takes the audience on an emotional voyage far greater than such a run time would suggest. It is a film that could only come from France, a country that seems to draw its strength somewhat from keeping issues out in the open rather than bottling their feelings up. Many French films address depression, grief, sex, longing, isolation, inadequacy, passion, and more in matter-of-fact ways, and this film addresses at least four of these concepts. All I can say is that, to me, it’s about as refreshing as cinema can get.

]]>http://salient.org.nz/2017/07/my-life-as-a-courgette-claude-barras/feed/0Wonder Woman (2017)http://salient.org.nz/2017/06/wonder-woman-2017/
http://salient.org.nz/2017/06/wonder-woman-2017/#commentsWed, 07 Jun 2017 00:19:47 +0000http://salient.org.nz/?p=47365It’s almost soul affirming to report that the DC Cinematic Universe has produced a film that is actually fantastically enjoyable, which is no mean feat considering they’ve been getting progressively worse over the last few years.

As a superhero film it’s not what one would call groundbreaking (it being an origin story, as well as a Word War One film), but it is brave enough to bite off some heavier thematic material than many of its contemporaries. In fact, the film and its main character, Amazon Princess Diana/Wonder Woman feel refreshingly relevant, even this late in the game for the superhero genre. Although the first act has its hang ups, once the film (and its main character) get into gear everything is smooth sailing.

Gal Gadot is physically exceptional, and is pretty much every stunt person in the film. So much of the action carries a proper weight to it, and the choreography is incredible. The filmmakers do indulge occasionally into what I call “rubber body syndrome” where the combination of a real actor and a CGI double don’t quite blend properly, but it’s only noticeable every now and then.

Aside from the intelligibility of the action (a first for a new DC film) we also get what has been completely lacking in the past few films; characters we care about. Wonder Woman has the perfect balance of qualities to make her likable, but flawed, and tested enough to make her interesting. The rest of the cast also pull their weight, with the Amazons and supporting soldier characters filling in the emotional edges. Even Chris Pine, as Steve Trevor, is given enough depth and comedy to work with.

All in all it’s a worthy adaptation of a truly classic character, and DC has succeeded in creating a film with stakes, social commentary, empathetic characters, and spectacle.

P.S. I want a spinoff where 300 of Zack Synder’s Spartans square off 300 of Patty Jenkins Amazons.

]]>http://salient.org.nz/2017/06/wonder-woman-2017/feed/0Pirates of the Caribbeanhttp://salient.org.nz/2017/06/pirates-of-the-caribbean/
http://salient.org.nz/2017/06/pirates-of-the-caribbean/#commentsMon, 05 Jun 2017 21:00:38 +0000http://salient.org.nz/?p=47225Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

Dadda dum dum dadda dum dum dadda dum dum dada dada.

Easily the greatest high seas adventure movie ever made, the first Pirates film exploded in 2003 like a well timed gun powder cask. It combined real world heroics with supernatural antics, and seamlessly blended practical filmmaking with spectacular CGI. It also happens to be one of my favourite blockbusters. What makes this film great is elusive, principally because of Johnny Depp’s signature performance as the pirate who does not need an introduction. At his funniest he is hysterical, and when it comes to the action and stunt-work neither the character nor the filmmakers settle for anything less than outstanding.

To flesh out the narrative come Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley. Although much of their chemistry is supreme Hollywood melodrama, the charm of the film overcomes this and Knightley in particular gives of plenty of energy and charisma. But beneath the star-studded ensemble is a the brilliant execution by director Gore Verbinski, who keeps the plot moving at a smooth and seamless pace wherein dialogue, characterisation and action set pieces all move as one. In classic Pirates fashion, many of the most dramatic and humorous lines come between clashes of swords.

Perhaps what makes this film so utterly watchable is the awe that the film itself seems to relish in, as there are so many true “holy shit” moments, and there’s also a sense of mystery to the whole world on display. With the edges of the map far from filled in, the possibilities are endless, as is the entertainment value.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017)

God I wanted to love this film, but upon leaving the theatre I thought “Hollywood can’t even be bothered filming a real fucking sunset anymore.” This comes towards the end of the film, but prior to that there were three entire convoluted acts filled with equally questionable content.

Although relatively short for a Piratesfilm, there is a sense that the 258 plot points are all being crammed by the handful in each scene with careless abandon. The dialogue is abrasively awful, especially from the two new principal characters. People encounter each other, leave, get captured, and it’s pretty much rinse and repeat for the next two hours. Characters whose motivations are plain and clear from the beginning get lengthy monologues of drivel so that the even the most inattentive viewer knows what’s going on. There were at least two sub plots added in the last twenty minutes that made me go, “Fuck you movie, just no.”

The film actually looksworse than the first, which came out 14 years ago. There isn’t a single real ship to found, and the green screen is third rate. The action is lacklustre in comparison to any of the films before it, and no set pieces give even a hint of awe.

The chief culprit (aside from the directors who I also can’t be bothered searching on IMDb), is Johnny “Paycheck” Depp. Never has Jack Sparrow been more painfully unfunny or worn out. His character makes no change or progression throughout the entire film and his antics are actually just stupid. He’s no longer the best pirate anyone has ever seen; he’s just a drunk idiot who only escapes situations by sheer cinematic luck. His role was essentially that of a hollow decoration on an ugly, undercooked, mismatched, flavourless, uninspired, cake.

]]>http://salient.org.nz/2017/06/pirates-of-the-caribbean/feed/0Raw (2017)http://salient.org.nz/2017/05/raw-2017/
http://salient.org.nz/2017/05/raw-2017/#commentsSun, 07 May 2017 21:00:27 +0000http://salient.org.nz/?p=46626After reports of people passing out at the Toronto Film Festival, it was pretty hard to resist seeking this film out when it was finally rated and released in New Zealand. As it turns out, it may have been a case of much ado about nothing, because Raw’s violence isn’t exacting anything jaw dropping; at the end of the day, this film isn’t really a pure horror film. Set in a veterinary school in France, a young Justine (Garance Marillier) must make it through the rigorous hazing of her first week while struggling with a variety of adolescent urges that have swollen to the surface. If you thought Ginger Snaps was a fairly direct metaphor where a movie about werewolves is paralleled with two girls going through puberty, get ready for something on another level.

As Justine is gradually broken into the world of drinking and partying, something else wakes up inside her, and a graphic representation of youth sexuality ensues. Here the horror is primarily found in the pleasure and repulsion she finds in both herself and (as you probably guessed from the poster) in eating human flesh. It truly is a coming-of-age film like no other. Julia Ducournau lends a fascinating eye to the subject matter, as the line between reality and illusion often get blurred, and colouring of the film is constantly inventive with neon lights, paint, and of course blood.

Overall the film does somewhat give to its own urges towards the end, with a variety of things merely happening, and though the narrative does not always come across in a succinct matter, the material is thought provoking enough in itself to provide a host of gruesome entertainment. Honestly I can’t think of another film since The Texas Chainsaw Massacre that has added to a self-defined genre of mine entitled vegetarian-horror. In 1973 a group of teens were brutally slaughtered and butchered like animals, and here again the ethics of meat are brought to the forefront. Regardless of dietary persuasion, I recommend this to anyone craving the strange.